Laserfiche WebLink
<br />- <br /> <br />Ms. Schue asked who was responsible for deciding the final route. Mr. Gix <br />said staff proposed a joint hearing with State and City Council <br />representatives. He said the alignment decision would then be a product of <br />the study report, along with advice from the City and from State staff. He <br />also said he did not expect a decision with which the City would be <br />uncomfortable. <br /> <br />Mr. Obie asked whether all of today's options would be included in the <br />hearing. Mr. Gix said the hearing would be a supplemental hearing on only the <br />east end of the project. He said all options eventually became a common <br />route, so testimony would be taken only on the five options in the area from <br />Seneca to Garfield. He explained that additional information now meant <br />additional businesses could be affected, so additional testimony had to be <br />taken. Mr. McKinley said a City Council review and discussion could be <br />scheduled after the hearing, and a recommendation could be made to the State <br />in late June. <br /> <br />Mr. Hansen asked whether option lA elevated had included consideration of <br />elevating 6th Avenue or Highway 99. Mr. Gix said that probably had not been <br />considered, because only one route could be elevated, and elevation of another <br />route would mean that advantages to the extension would be lost. Mr. Gix said <br />another consideration of alternate lA was that the intersection at Highway 99 <br />would operate at service level D, which would require an exception to design <br />standards. He added that other intersections in the area operated at the same <br />sub-standard level. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Mr. Hansen said he supported proceeding with alternate lA elevated, because it <br />avoided many of the problems of alternate 1 elevated. <br /> <br />Mr. Gleason said going beyond the hearing date would not allow time for an <br />analysis of impact, so any suggestions should be made in the next couple of <br />days. <br /> <br />Mr. Miller said alternates lA and lA elevated looked appealing because of <br />costs and lack of business impacts, and he asked whether any other approaches <br />could be used to mitigate the impact of the intersection if the route was not <br />elevated. He also suggested testing the routing of 5th Avenue to determine <br />impacts of installing a cul-de-sac, signalization, and rerouting. Mr. Gix <br />said some design possibilities did exist, including a potential off-ramp into <br />5th Avenue. Mr. Gix also said he did not think the service level of the <br />intersection would be a bad problem, and he added that the level should not <br />deteriorate through the design life. He said any changes probably would <br />affect businesses, but further examination could be made without significantly <br />affecting the timeline. <br /> <br />Ms. Bascom asked about elevating lA only for a short distance over 5th <br />Avenue. Mr. Gix said a short structure was difficult to build and required a <br />great deal of space for clearance and approaches. He said that could be <br />considered, but the structure probably would be about half as large and cost <br />probably would be in between those of other options. <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />MINUTES--City Council Dinner/Work Session <br /> <br />March 13, 1986 <br /> <br />Page 4 <br />